What are "days" in Genesis 1 really?

[FFC]

The reason I asked was because I am both a OEC and a YEC at the same time. From the time the earth was created, in Genesis 1:1, to the time in Genesis 1:2, there was actually a long period of time in between the two. To clarify, God created the earth. This was before man was created. It was during the time of the dinosaurs. Between the dinosaur age, and when man was created, this is the time when Lucifer rebelled and God cast him down to earth with his demons. Naturally Satan did not go quietly, and there was a big struggle, which killed everything on earth, and made the earth "without form, and void". So that brings us to verse 2, when God recreated the earth. It may sound a bit far-fetched, but this is my theory, anyway. Just thought I'd share.

That's not an uncommon position. It is commonly called the Gap Theory and technically it is an Old Earth Position although it has elements of both.

I have always been interested in this theory. It does seem to reconcile some discrepancies as far as the age of the earth goes. In Gen 1:2 it does say the earth was void and without form.

[Canuckster1127]

The reason I asked was because I am both a OEC and a YEC at the same time. From the time the earth was created, in Genesis 1:1, to the time in Genesis 1:2, there was actually a long period of time in between the two. To clarify, God created the earth. This was before man was created. It was during the time of the dinosaurs. Between the dinosaur age, and when man was created, this is the time when Lucifer rebelled and God cast him down to earth with his demons. Naturally Satan did not go quietly, and there was a big struggle, which killed everything on earth, and made the earth "without form, and void". So that brings us to verse 2, when God recreated the earth. It may sound a bit far-fetched, but this is my theory, anyway. Just thought I'd share.

That's not an uncommon position. It is commonly called the Gap Theory and technically it is an Old Earth Position although it has elements of both.

I have always been interested in this theory. It does seem to reconcile some discrepancies as far as the age of the earth goes. In Gen 1:2 it does say the earth was void and without form.

It was a very popular theory for a significant period of time, due to it's being included in the Scofield Bible in the commentary. It's not as popular anymore because there are textual problems as well as scientific evidence problems with it, but I still see a lot of people out there who hold to it as a possible option. Check out the link that Kurieuo included about it to the page on the main site if you're interested in more information.

[FFC]

I will. Thanks.

[FFC]

Theologically, I find it difficult to support the concept that Satan has the power to destroy and corrupt all of God's creation. I'm sure that if he really had that kind of power, he would have used it again to destroy the world or at least prevent the Messiah from living. Nowhere in the Bible is that kind of power attributed to Satan, since his primary method of operation is through lies and deceit.1

I agree. I don't believe Satan could cause that much destruction to God's creation. Only God could. Maybe God Himself demolished the whole earth to start new again. He did threaten to do this with His people many times in the OT. Just a thought. Creation makeover theory?

[jenna]

No, Satan did not do this by himself. It was the war that occurred when God threw Satan down to earth. This "war" is what actually killed everything.

[Kurieuo]

No, Satan did not do this by himself. It was the war that occurred when God threw Satan down to earth. This "war" is what actually killed everything.

I notice the war was in inverted commas. When a term is quoted in inverted commas the writer often intends to portray that the term they used isn't really thought to be valid. Which lead me to wonder... what kind of "war" exactly took place between God and Satan? Seriously. Bombs and nukes? Throwing of comets and stars? Bolts of lightening?


Furthermore, does any one really have the capacity to oppose God's sovereign will when and if He so enacts it? As far as I see it, any conflict between God and Satan would have been comparable to me flicking an ant off my arm, and even in that analogy, the degree of Satan's power and resistance (the ant) against God is probably giving far too much credit.

[jenna]

I think you forgot these smilies, K.

[Kurieuo]

[jenna]

It's too bad I can't copy the entire smilie board here.

[Katabole]

I have always believed that the "days" in Genesis are not 24 hour days. This is not based on my own understanding, but on what the Bible says.

Pro 3:5, Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. (KJV)

I know that for many "free thinkers" that is a hard thing to do, to think that they are not in control of their lives. God is in control of every one of the lives of his children. And all the answers they will ever need are written, for Jesus says they are, no matter how simple they may appear to the modern educated mind. God speaks only as simply as the level of our intellects can understand, for if He explained things any more complexly or in His terms not ours, we as humans would not understand at all.

I have noticed that Psalm 90:4 was quoted.

Ps 90:4, For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

There is a double witness to this in the New Testament from 2Peter.

2Pet 3:8, But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Peter is telling us in humbleness to know this and not to be ignorant of this very specific thing. It couldn't be said any simpler.

I do believe that there was an age (eon) before this one as the Bible clearly says and as fossilized evidence proves.

Gen 1:1, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It doesn't say how long it took God to create the heaven an earth, but we know from science and our human perspective of the universe, it is ancient. This is the first age that is being described here.

We know from scripture who was with God in the beginning.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

And

Pro 8:22, The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

Before there was even an atom, God was there in the beginning.

Gen 1:2, And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That word "was" should actually be the word "became".

In the Strong's concordance, it is the Hebrew word "Hayah"

hayah
haw-yaw
a primitive root (compare 'hava'' (1933)); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.

The earth wasn't without form (void), it "became" that way. God did not create it void.

Isa 45:18, For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

It became that way due to Satan's rebellion against God in that first eon. So instead of God destroying Satan, he instead destroyed that eon or age:

Rev 12:3, And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth:

Because of this action by Lucifer (Satan), God proceded to do the following:

Jer 4:23, I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was (became) without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

26I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

God annihilated everything. Then he began, this second age.

Gen 1:3, And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

This is God's intial creation at the beginning of this second age in verse 3 of Genesis when the first "day" of this age began. Each day that follows as Psalms 90:4 and 2Pet 3:8 attest to, is a thousand human years long. One day with the LORD is a thousand human years. God could have created it in 24 seconds, 24 minutes or 24 hours but He chose to create using 1000 year cycles.

2Peter again gives scriptural backup that this first age in the beginning was destroyed.

2Pet 3:5, For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

That word "world" there is the Greek word eon or age. It is not speaking of the earth. If you notice Peter says that people are willingly ignorant of this. This is not speaking at all of Noah's flood as many have been incorrectly taught but the flood that God utilized to destoy the age in the ancient past. And if something perishes as Peter points out in verse 6, it dies. That world age ended or perished. Then God created this age, the beginning of which he grouped into "days" of 1000 year periods.

The souls were with God in the beginning. Read what God says to Jeremiah the prophet:

Jer 1:4, Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

God knew Jeremiah as a soul that was with him in the beginning, before he was ever born as a flesh man. This also shows a definite distinction between those who are predestined and those who have free will. Jeremiah was predestined. He didn't choose to be a prophet. God ordained him as one while he was in his mother's womb. God deliberately interfered in his life. There are many examples of this in scripture and this is the way that God can use predestined souls to fulfill prophecy and make it come to pass, exactly as it is written.Those of free will on the other hand, God will not interfere in their lives period. Unless, those of free will specifically ask him to and only then if it is God's will. Those who are predestined are not any better than those of free will. The difference is, unlike those of free will, that they fought against Satan in that first age and God gave them a gift, called a destiny because they earned it.

The only reason this age exists is because God decided not to destoy Satan and the souls he deceived that rebelled against God in the beginning, so that souls who are born into this life as humans would decide for themselves during their life, whether they would follow God, or follow Satan. God knew this was going to happen and he had it planned that Christ would be born in this second age to be our Redeemer, so that we will be with God in the next age (third age or eon) if we accept Christ as our Saviour in this present age. Why else would Christ be called "The Lamb slain before the foundation of the age?"

So, I do believe that the "days" in Genesis are actually 1000 human years long.

[Slow Thinker]

To say that a sunset-to-sunset day does not represent 24 hours is as much a break from nonsupernatural science as 24-hour-day-6-day creation. After all, to believe this, one must accept that the rotation of the earth changed at some point. One may as well believe that it was 24 hours.

In addition, we should consider what those it was written for would have understood by it. For example, those who would have heard or read Revelation 7:1 or 20:8 right after it was written would have interpreted "four corners of the earth" to mean going out as far as possible, and this meaning has not changed with our new knowledge. So, even though its meaning has changed from literal to figurative, the understanding it imparts remains constant. This is not true for day-agers. They believe that the Bible has been misinterpreted for thousands of years, and that the only way that one would even think to interpret it correctly is through scientific theories, a recent creation of man. Since it was from God, this suggests to me that it was intended to be interpreted incorrectly. So, to agree with the day-age theory is to agree that God intentionally misled (perhaps even lied to) many people. I can't accept this. From an ethical standpoint it would have been better to say nothing. It is easier for me to accept that God created the universe the way it is, and that the earth is actually older than the rest of the universe, as Scripture seems to indicate. (check gap theory)The reason that God may have created an expanding universe may not be because He needed it to explode in order to be created, but so that humans would know that the end of the universe will not come through its collapse. Just a thought.

So we see that they believe correct understanding of the Bible comes not from careful study of the Bible but from science, not from being close to God but to society (for there are few who actually came up with this idea). Furthermore, if the Bible is perfect, it does not need outside influences for correct understanding. These are dangerous views. But I've gotten a bit off topic.

The fact that a reference point is necessary could be problematic, but only because we are tempted to use all of God's creation as this reference point.

The greater mystery for me is what was the initial light that God made? God didn't create the sun or stars when He said "Let there be light." He did that later.

I don't know how you can say "we know that the earth is very old" when this evidence could have been created from nothing like everything else about the universe at creation. For what purpose I don't know, but it's a possibility.

To me, the question is not where the scientific evidence leads, because I think we all know the answer to that, but whether it is trustworthy. It is possible that either God created the universe with signs of age because they are "good" in some other way, or that those signs of age were put there by someone else for the same reason as other religious beliefs were introduced. I would imagine (emphasis on "imagine") the latter happening in a conversation similar to that found in the book of Job:

Satan: Those previous tests of introducing new religious ideas have caused some to stray, but they have not been a strong enough test for those who still believe. Let me go and create evidence that you did not really create the universe the way you say you did, by distorting your creation, and they will surely stray.

God: Very well, but you may not hinder their beliefs in any other way, and I will still provide philosophical reason for them to believe, so that their hope is not extinguished.

What we can trust is not what comes from God's creation, but from God Himself.

The day-age theory is an excuse for losing faith in God (it may be more than that, but it does serve that purpose). It is a way to feel good about believing that God is not capable of performing miracles. After all, if one believes in miracles, then science does not really even suggest that the day-age theory is true, since all evidence of the age of the universe also represents a logical state for a newly created "good" universe, and things that seem illogical, like dinosaur bones, are not typically at the forefront, and have their own explanations anyway.

This has become a common trait of Cristian scientists. They assume that if it could not happen naturally, then God could not have done it. They believe that God is not all-powerful, that He must follow the laws of nature. This view has become widely accepted by non-scientists, as well. I realized this while watching a show on Biblical disasters on the History Channel, but that isn't the only place.

I eagerly await the next reply.

[Canuckster1127]

Welcome Slow Thinker,

1. The definition of Yom being more than 24 hours is an established grammatical fact. The issue is how it is contextually applied in Genesis. Asserting that it requires a change in the earth's rotation to mean more than 24 hours is a backward and irrational argument.

2. You assert the original audience would have understood 24 hour days and then don't support your assertion. You're projecting your assumption back on the original audience and not looking at it objectively as best I can see.

3. It is not more spiritual to believe something that is scientifically unsupported for it's own sake. The issue is the interpretation of the word of God. YEC does not have an exclusive claim upon the Bible as a source. OEC is scripturally based as well and existed in a wide spread section of Christianity and Judaism before the advent of modern science.

4. The rest of your post is an exercise in rhetoric, not based in scripture of logic.

Out of curiosity, did you write this yourself or cut and paste? It's OK to cut and paste but a source should be included when you do.

[B. W.]

The word translated 'Day' in the Creation account is a word in Hebrew that denotes an 'indefinite period of time.'

YEC individuals can get mad at me but I stick with that primary meaning until the context clarifies meaning. Context in the creation account does not specifically define a 24 hour period. So for that reason, I'll stay with the basic meaning of the word - 'an indefinite period of time.'

YEC people and OEC should realize that as Christians, it is Christ that matters — not the length of a day. We can disagree on such matters but the bound of unity between believers should not be broken because of a “Need to be Right at any Cost.”

WE are to walk as Christ did and reflect who he is to each other. On matters of YEC and OEC — we need to remember this. I wish the best blessing for the YEC's! No hard feelings. One day we'll get the real answer but for now, let's live as Christ bleed and died and rose from the dead for — a new person transformed into the image of the Son!

God's blessings too all!
-
-
-

[Slow Thinker]

1. The definition of Yom being more than 24 hours is an established grammatical fact. The issue is how it is contextually applied in Genesis. Asserting that it requires a change in the earth's rotation to mean more than 24 hours is a backward and irrational argument.

2. You assert the original audience would have understood 24 hour days and then don't support your assertion. You're projecting your assumption back on the original audience and not looking at it objectively as best I can see.

The basis for my arguments was not the word "Yom", but how it was marked: by sunrise and sunset. This denotes earth rotation at first glance and I think that understanding (or something simpler) would have existed in the original audience.

3. It is not more spiritual to believe something that is scientifically unsupported for it's own sake. The issue is the interpretation of the word of God. YEC does not have an exclusive claim upon the Bible as a source. OEC is scripturally based as well and existed in a wide spread section of Christianity and Judaism before the advent of modern science.

I wasn't aware that OEC even existed before modern science. Do you have any references with which I can verify this along with a timetable of scientific beliefs (I've never been a real history buff)?

Out of curiosity, did you write this yourself or cut and paste? It's OK to cut and paste but a source should be included when you do.

To answer your question, I did write it myself.

[Canuckster1127]

1. The definition of Yom being more than 24 hours is an established grammatical fact. The issue is how it is contextually applied in Genesis. Asserting that it requires a change in the earth's rotation to mean more than 24 hours is a backward and irrational argument.

2. You assert the original audience would have understood 24 hour days and then don't support your assertion. You're projecting your assumption back on the original audience and not looking at it objectively as best I can see.

The basis for my arguments was not the word "Yom", but how it was marked: by sunrise and sunset. This denotes earth rotation at first glance and I think that understanding (or something simpler) would have existed in the original audience.

3. It is not more spiritual to believe something that is scientifically unsupported for it's own sake. The issue is the interpretation of the word of God. YEC does not have an exclusive claim upon the Bible as a source. OEC is scripturally based as well and existed in a wide spread section of Christianity and Judaism before the advent of modern science.

I wasn't aware that OEC even existed before modern science. Do you have any references with which I can verify this along with a timetable of scientific beliefs (I've never been a real history buff)?

Out of curiosity, did you write this yourself or cut and paste? It's OK to cut and paste but a source should be included when you do.

To answer your question, I did write it myself.

Again, Welcome.

Since Yom is the word translated "day" in Genesis and Yom is defined in Hebrew as either the daylight portion of a day, a 24 hour day or a period of time, if you're going to claim a literal understanding of Genesis, which both YEC and OEC does by the way, then introducing the idea of the earth's rotation being the depending factor you create more problems then you solve. To begin with, you need to explain the presence of 24 hour days in the days before the creation of the sun, moon and stars on day 4.

Here's a page that lists a lot of different article about it, including some by Rich Deem, the host of this forum.

http://www.answersincreation.org/yom_hebrew.htm

Here's a link with a strong catalog of OEC articles. OEC belief in the history of the Church. It certainly has modified in some of its forms since the advent of modern science, but then again, so has YEC.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... n.html#old

A warning from Saint Augustine (4th century) to Christians about the creation:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)

Many Church Fathers believed the days of Genesis were more than 24 hours, including, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, and Eusebius.

If you want a good book to read that is fair to both creationist camps and also examined evolution in terms of recent (since 1700) history, I recommend this one,

http://www.amazon.com/Where-Darwin-Meet ... r-mr-title